Clayoquot to be logged?!

Thanks for that WCG, if we don't hear from the BC NDP on this in the next forty eight hours our socialist paper will be running with the Green Party statement.

(With apologies to Carole James)

[ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

Well I am certainly conflicted now. I believe in saving our old growth forests but I also believe in First Nations self government. quote: It is expected that logging in the area would largely be done by Iisaak Forest Resources.

Francis Frank, President of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council -- which represents 14 tribes on Vancouver Island, including five that are members of the Clayoquot board -- said all logging would have to meet scientific guidelines.

But Mr. Frank agreed the issue could lead to blockades and to divisions within the native community.

"You face the possibility of road action again. . . . That's coming across loud and clear that if Iisaak was to proceed and get into some of these pristine areas that they shouldn't be surprised that the environmentalists are out on the logging roads."

Mr. Frank said that in 1993, aboriginals largely supported the blockades. Would that happen again, even if the loggers were natives this time?

"I'm sure [environmental protesters] would have a level of support within first-nation communities. Now what degree or level, I don't know, but I'm certain there will be some." So does this come under Babble's guidelines against white people telling natives how they should conduct themselves or is the environment an exception to the "rule." Is only Eric the Half Red allowed to comment or can others?

Geez, I'm hurt, I didn't realise I was soo scarey... I really only tried to help these discussions back onto the issues I thought leftwingers would be most concerned, which is the many many problems that aboriginal people the world over have to deal with now, but maybe I was being a bit naive or worse. If it helps these discussions along I can tell you that Erik the Half Red won't be here much longer and yeah, I'm a little conflicted about this myself.

IMO (which others are perfectly free to disagree with here) some activists take too much of a puritan "noble savage" view of FNs and seem to expect them to suffer quietly in hopeless poverty. OTOH (and according to some FN contributers I've seen) some native leaders mostly just seem interested in economic development now, regardless of potential future costs to their own autonomy, culture, environment or health. Where the balance between two valid interests are is a question I guess everyone involved will have to consider carefully, hopefully within the context of each situation, but IMO Again the final decision should remain up to the FN involved themselves. Perhaps we should learn to trust their collective judgement a bit more -if indeed that is what this decision actually represents.

(On our little island the local band faced some resistence when they announced their intention to do some selective logging here to generate some needed income. Turned out they did such a good job of it that it was almost invisible from the outside and they won a conservaTION award for it. Ironically a white neighbour who raised some of the most noise over it promptly began a near clearcut on his large property and then left the island. Didn't receive as much local comment but wasn't able to sell any of the land for further home development either. Maybe there's a lesson here somewhere)

Re Clayoquot Sound I guess I'll have to see what this particular deal involves first, before casting any stones. The previous compromise by the BC NDP allowed for some limited mostly selective logging as well as preservation areas so I'm curious now to see what or who exactly is motivating this latest turn of events. If anyone else has anymore information or angles on it then I'd be interested in seeing it. That's all from Erik the Terrible here.

[ 03 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

No biggie Kropotkin, I'm not easily offended and I know you're a genuine leftist. I just didn't understand why my name came up as trying to block others from taking part. I usually only get irritated at those who are just trying to undermine a topic, pretending to be something they're not, or generally acting like an arrogant rightwing mudslinger. Standard Babble trolls IOW. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I should have been more balanced in my intial reaction though.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

Like That for example. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] Little known fact about many Native cultures, is that they have ancient myths and stories about their once misusing mother nature for selfish arrogant ends and suffering as a result of it. One of the more common themes, if memory serves, is about the animal spirits turning against them and plant spirits in the form of medicine coming to their rescue, young hero figures coming back with the necessary prescriptions to regain the balance after the old magician's tricks failed. That's why they consciously taught their young hunters to respect their prey and young farmers to respect the soil, thereafter.

The Mayans and Toltecs were exceptions to the rule, being highly stratified (eventually) warrior societies with high populations, and even They never went Near as far as we have abusing the Earth. Serious droughts due to major volcanic activity thousands of miles away also undermined them. Reliable birth control also hadn't been discovered Anywhere yet, with the possible exception of a couple Amazonian herbs still being studied (quietly) and the myth of self imposed abstinence OC...

ETA: And I find it interesting that there's rarely mention anymore that the end of the Ice-age coincided with the end of mega fauna Everywhere in the world, some of it coming from diminishing habitats and invading species other than man. Native Americans are now more commonly recognised as having entered the New World well Before these catastrophic events. (well before 'Kennewick man' too...) That doesn't mean that every 'Indian' can just be assumed to be a natural environmentalist either, certainly not anymore, that too would be kinda presumptious. Just means that we're not in a strong position to lecture Them about preserving nature.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

The 'Beaver wars' were also caused in part by the search for new hunting grounds to supply a new foreign market in furs. The Algonkian Cree are now seen as having the most sustainable fur trade in the world. They quickly adapted and learned IOW. Most of the recorded population movement during historical times was due to pressure from White settlement (increased warfare) and the accompaning clearance of forests and game. Unlike New World myths the Bible also says 'be fruitful and mutiply' and 'hold dominion over the Earth' which is still interpretted by many true believers as a licence to take what they will. 'God will provide' others are smugly told. When Aboriginal people today see the changes in climate most seem to worry about it and argue that we can still alter course; when fundamentalist Christians see it they celebrate the coming demise of homosexuals, socialists and Muslims. My point is theres no real comparison in either sense, the New World still had a far more diverse and healthy environment after 11 to 25,000 years of Amerindian habitation than it does after a mere 150 to 500 years of Ours. Blame it on high tech if you prefer but the pro-development creed still revolves around Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman ideals of industry, individual wealth and infinite growth and power. Those are not traditional Native values.

[ 04 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:Iisaak, a joint-venture company led by five First Nations communities (51%) and Weyerhaeuser Company (49%) Any company that has the U.S. corporation Weyerhaeuser as its controlling shareholder is unlikely to respect native values. No company with non-native shareholders should be allowed to touch these sacred lands after all the decades of dispute.

This is a farce.

I agree, this is not a race issue. The issue is that a rapacious multinational is gaining access to lands that it has coveted for decades by co-opting native rights and government land settlements. And it is a farce.

Found some factoids online that help outline the complexity of it a bit, I boldfaced some interesting bits that could be useful leads for anyone wanting to look into this further. Maybe a couple more interesting links later.

http://staging3.onenw.org/DogwoodInitiative/bulletins/clayoquot_-_one_step_forward _two_steps

1. On the one hand, International Forest Products (Interfor) announced that it will not log in two pristine watersheds for the next five years;

2. On the other hand, the Ministry of Forests reduced the annual logging quota (AAC) of Iisaak, the Nuu-chah-nulth joint venture with Weyerhaeuser that is implementing sustainable logging practices certified by the internationally recognized Forest Stewardship Council (FSC); and *** (!!!)

3. The provincial Crown's just approved the privatization of 173,641 acres of forestland previously included in Weyerhaeuser's tree farm licence 44. This was done without any consultation with the Nuu-cha-nulth. This privatization will impact on the region's forests as provincial forest laws will cease to apply, raw logs from these lands will ultimately be available for export, and lands may be subdivided and converted to other recreational or residential uses.

http://staging3.onenw.org/DogwoodInitiative/newsstories/clayoquotopenedtologging

Mr. Lornie said the board is seeking a balance between economic activity and environmental protection. "You really have to factor in the interests of first nations here. . . . At some point down the road they are going to want to put treaties in place and they are going to want to have some form of an economy, whatever the scale of it is, to support their people," said.
It is expected that logging in the area would largely be done by Iisaak Forest Resources.
Francis Frank, President of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council -- which represents 14 tribes on Vancouver Island, including five that are members of the Clayoquot board -- said all logging would have to meet scientific guidelines. {1}*
But Mr. Frank agreed the issue could lead to blockades and to divisions within the native community.
"You face the possibility of road action again. . . . That's coming across loud and clear that if Iisaak was to proceed and get into some of these pristine areas that they shouldn't be surprised that the environmentalists are out on the logging roads."
Mr. Frank said that in 1993, aboriginals largely supported the blockades. Would that happen again, even if the loggers were natives this time?
"I'm sure [environmental protesters] would have a level of support within first-nation communities. Now what degree or level, I don't know, but I'm certain there will be some."

http://www.forestethics.org/article.php?id=1539

The new plan will permit anywhere from 20 per cent to 60 per cent of each {2}* of the eight planning units to be logged under eco-standards established by a scientific panel on sustainable forest practices.
……………………………….......

The watersheds have been under a voluntary moratorium since the mid-1990s so land-use planning in Clayoquot Sound on a watershed-by-watershed basis could be completed. Environmental groups, who fought a bitter war with logging companies in the 1990s to save the sound from logging, say they expected the moratorium would be maintained in regions they describe as pristine but outside existing parks.
……………………………….......

But Agriculture and Lands Minister Pat Bell said he believes very little logging will take place because of the high standards set by the regional board. He described the plans as the framework that establishes conditions under which logging can take place.
"The standards are certainly the highest in British Columbia."
He said so far, no logging has taken place in the other three watersheds in the region where planning has been completed since 2003.
"We believe it is appropriate to respect the decisions of the Nuu-cha-nulth," {3}* he said, referring to the first nations on Vancouver Island's west coast. The five Clayoquot Sound tribes are members of the Nuu-cha-nulth Tribal Council.
He said so far, no logging has taken place in the other three watersheds in the region where planning has been completed since 2003.
Francis Frank, president of the Nuu-cha-nulth Tribal Council, said he is concerned about the decision to allow logging {1}* and is attempting to set up a meeting between Clayoquot first nations and environmental groups to determine what exactly has been decided.
"That's one of the underlying concerns," he said. "How much logging will take place and what methods of logging will be used."
………………………………......

The plans will protect 40 per cent of the old-growth forests in each planning unit {2}* and once existing parks are taken into account, ensure that 61 per cent of the sound is protected.

http://www.iisaak.com/historicagreements.html

Agreement With Environmental Groups
On June 16, 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Iisaak Forest Resources Limited and the following environmental groups:
Greenpeace Canada
Greenpeace International
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club of BC
Western Canada Wilderness Committee
Environment Groups committed to:
Supporting Iisaak’s operations.
Actively engaging in promoting markets for products produced by Iisaak.
Developing ongoing mechanisms for sustaining cooperation.
Iisaak committed to:
Respecting the role of First Nations in resource management activities.
Achieving certification under the Forest Stewardship Council.
Managing eehmiis, Nuu-chah-nulth for "precious", areas emphasizing non-timber values.
Developing ongoing mechanisms for sustaining cooperation.

Agreement With Displaced Forest Workers
In September 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by Iisaak and displaced forest workers of the Clayoquot South Community (or ‘the South End’). This agreement led to the establishment of an employment protocol wherein Iisaak agreed to provide opportunities to local contractors and individuals as much as possible, taking into consideration performance standards and cost.
Based on the company’s operating requirements Iisaak will hire: First Nations contractors who are owned by the Central Region First Nations or partnered with a local contractor, qualified South End residents with special consideration for displaced Kennedy Lake employees, and qualified persons within the local area. Over time, Iisaak will expand its business to create additional local employment opportunities.

http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcgov/content/docs/@2SOJ7_0YQtuW/clayoquot_sound.pdf

Clayoquot Sound Interim Measures Extension Agreement (PDF)

http://www.physorg.com/news73995887.html

The dispute pits aboriginal people against environmentalists, warned Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in a statement Thursday.

"The Nuu-chah-nulth are demonstrating that they are no different than the white loggers. {3}* A chainsaw is a chainsaw no matter whose hand is on the throttle," said Watson, a controversial international activist.

[ 07 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

As a person who helped build the Carmanah Trail way back in the old days of protests and arrests, this news is particularily galling. I guess the old adage of 'if you can't beat em, join em' is now being employed by the oppressors to wipe out one of the few remaining old growth areas left in the world.

quote:Originally posted by jester:
Logging FN AAC is frequently subbed out to large logging contractors for a set price per cubic meter.

Logging on the West Coast is accomplished with very large,specialised,expensive equipment.It is not a business one just jumps into.

Strategic partnerships with forest multinationals and partnerships with large logging contractors speaks of using Iisaak as a front to deflect criticism whereas a non-intrusive select logging plan could be accomplished by Iisaak in a sustainable method.

That's an another angle to look into, which other companies may be behind it (one good possibility is Interfor) but from what I've seen online most of the cutting Is going to be done by Iisaak using selective means.

Since the prior agreement looks to me more open than either side seems to be admitting so far, another question I'd like to see answered is what the status of the central blocks slated to be logged are, as well as how important they are to the viability of the forests on either side -bears and other large species need it as a corridor, salmon need it to protect nearby spawning grounds?

Those are the kind of things I'd like to see looked at again, as not sure if the board members overseeing it would still be as ecologically oriented under this government.

quote: August 9, 2006 (Forestweb) — Logging in Vancouver Island's Clayoquot Sound is on the verge of a unique restructuring that would help reassure environmentalists concerned that pristine valleys are being opened up to cutting, The Vancouver Sun reported

The fix is in

quote: Iisaak has seldom been profitable since it was founded in 1999 and has been harvesting higher timber volumes each year in a bid to make money.

No surprise here

quote:Triumph Timber, one of the province's top eco-system-based loggers, is to take over the operational side of Clayoquot logging under the plan.

Triumph Timber is one of the biggest clearcutters on the west coast.

quote: The deal, worked out over the last six months, would mark the first time one of B.C.'s struggling forest companies had been restructured not only for the bottom line but to make it ecologically sustainable as well.

Iisaak can be restructured to be either economically sustainable or ecologically sustainable but not both.

The provincial ministry of forests is geared to reaping revenues through industrial logging.

There is no way that Ecotrust or especially Triumph Timber is investing in Iisaak to improve the biodiversity of the area. They smell profit.

As I speculated above, the bands are walking away from both management and logging and handing everything over to industrial loggers for a set price per meter.

quote: The issue of logging the watersheds is intertwined with Iisaak's profitability. If it cannot make money by logging lower volumes of higher valued timber, then the watersheds offer a ready solution.

Making money by cutting less won't be a problem, said the man who will be charged with doing the actual logging.

"It can be done," said Thomas Olsen, of Triumph Timber, one of the province's top eco-system-based loggers.

Triumph is to take over the operational side of Clayoquot logging under the plan. Triumph pioneered new logging methods on the north coast, where it has developed relationships with first nations based on balancing ecological integrity, social well-being and the economic realities of the business, said Olsen.

He said it would be premature for him to comment on the watersheds until Triumph has a chance to develop short-term and long-term plans.

Thats Olson's story but others have a different perspective on Triumph Timber's committment to ecological integrity or social well being.Triumph's committment to"economic realities of the business" is not in doubt.

forgot link...Forestweb

[ 13 August 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

[ 13 August 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

Is there to be NO reserves left of the giants that used to dominate this land?

quote: Either way it looks like the Greens have finally found an enviro issue they can really attack under this government

Actually, HalfRed, there are and have been legions of enviro issues that this Liberal regime has given opportunity to be attacked on--ones that mainly the NDP has taken on with, as expected, no coverage in the corporate dominated media.

Just a few of these are park privatization, park services and maintenance cuts, pulp mill effluent increase permits, gutting the Forest Practices Code, cancelling and divesting the clean energy and motors project started by the NDP government, expanding coal bed methane extraction without any ecological safeguards, promoting offshore oil drilling, completely butchering long-term sustainable development and transportation plans for the Lower Mainland and pushing for knee-jerk freeways expansion projects with little regard for their effectiveness or their impact on communities. The list goes on.

The ecological atrocities of the BC Liar regime are multitudes. It's the NDP, which has a lot of in-depth policy on these matters, that has addressed them--again with little or no attention.

As for Clayoquot Sound and what's happening there now, it's quite clear the major forest firms and their Liberal puppets have found a new way sell plain old fashioned rape-and-run practices to the public: shadow them behind First Nations development.

I don't totally fault the Nuu-cha-nulth Tribal Council for caving into some of this stuff. That nation is desperate for work opportunities for its members, and this is about all that's likely to come up in the next few years, or at least as long as the Liberals are in power.

None-the-less, from what I can gather about this plan is that it's not really a First Nations development plan since it's clear the Nuu-cha-nulth aren't anywhere near the drivers seat.

It may be true that they have little choice but to partner with forest companies to get the labour, skill and equipment needed, but they clearly would need to be the ones calling the shots--and it's clear they're not.

In addition, when the final decision on Clayoquot Sound was made by the NDP government in 1995, it dictated that the maximum area designated as commercial logging forest was to be 38 per cent, and that it needed to be logged under severely reduced cut block size and minimum road building.

It was determined by scientists at the time that any further expansion of the harvest area would great increase the risk of permanent damage to the temperate eco-system.

If this new plan expands that harvest area, then that's trouble. Add to this, that the BC Liberals changed the FPC to allow for expanded cut block size and further road building. That adds more trouble to the mix.

Also the whole AAC and tenure system has been messed around with to give forest company bosses more exclusive decision-making power over how much to cut and at what pace (market "rationalization" I think they call it).

SO Minister Bell can bloat about the “highest standards in BC” all he wants. The fact is his government has lowered those standards significantly. If scientific research shows that expanding the harvest area in the sound, and lowering the FPC standards, greatly risks damaging the sound permanently, then it shouldn’t happen, period.

quote: There is no way single tree select can generate the employment indicated above or generate the volume required to attract the interest of a Weyerhauser or Interfor.

I agree with the second thought here, but not the first.

I have read about logging operations in Europe, specifically Scandinavia, that are primarily based on selective harvest and sustained yield methods. Can't remember the link now, but I will try dig it up.

I do remember the stats quoted as getting about 5 full-time equivalent jobs per board foot. That's about 2.5 times better than we get in BC.

And all of these jobs are union, with employee ownership and worker co-ops and other democratic or community based business playing a huge role.

add to this, that the selective harvest methods are complimented by huge value-added provisions and massive investment into reforestation and maintenance.

Obviously, you can't just blindly compare what goes on in Scandinavia to BC, since there are huge biological, climate, market conditions, political status, terrain and other differences to consider.

But there are clearly some similarities where, if we had the democratic forum in which to discuss these, we could look at.

It's true, though--and this related to the above--that there's no way a major multi-national corporation, unless it is under the control of labour or progressive governments (and those are few and far between), would be interested in such practices, especially when compared to what they get away with in other parts of the globe.

Selective harvest and similar sustainable practices are labour intensive and require the re-investment of capital wealth generated back into the industry. That means lower returns for major shareholder cliques and snior executives that control these firms.

quote:I have read about logging operations in Europe, specifically Scandinavia, that are primarily based on selective harvest and sustained yield methods. Can't remember the link now, but I will try dig it up.

quote:Obviously, you can't just blindly compare what goes on in Scandinavia to BC, since there are huge biological, climate, market conditions, political status, terrain and other differences to consider

It is a difficult comparison because the Scandinavians only build infrastructure once and it is depreciated over many harvest rotations.

On BC's west coast,roadbuilding costs can be 1 million per Kilometer and the roads must be deactivated between cuts.

The largest reason for a lack of select cut on the coast is that the mayor corporations control access to timber and they prefer to cut very high value butt logs into dimension lumber rather than maximising value for clear millwork stock or value added products.

BC's timber marketing system must be opened up to reflect the value of these logs rather than allowing industry to waste them.

All the changes into a market based timber pricing system that BC is implementing is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic because the same players control BS's timber supply that controlled it before the reforms.

quote:... but it's not clear from that article whether these companies will be as bad as feared.

I am quite familiar with the modus operandi of the culprits involved.They are there for profit and if sustainability and forest stewardship is a goal,the goal will only be as a smokescreen for the real goal,cut everything they can get their hands on.

quote:

I think the important thing to remember here is that the Liberal government pressured them to increase their annual cuts or face losing their licence. Taking advantage of the band's tax free status maybe part of what that these companies are looking at(?)

Ah yes,the use it or lose it provisions play into industry's hands.The impetus for this provision is to enhance government's revenue flow and has nothing to do with forest stewardship.

Basically, nothing will happen with ANY cutting application unless FN are actively onside.Great idea but it leaves the bands open to being exploited by sophisticated corporations and also the miriad "consultants" who pocket everything that isn't bolted down.

quote:Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Local Native leaders and their communities have to be on guard not to be used by multinational industries who *may* try to pit them against others, or more accurately, minimum environmental and labour standards, but I'd like to see some actual evidence for this in *this* particular case first. More research needs to be done here IMo, as I'd imagine all established forest companies have been responsible for shoddy practices if they're allowed to get away with it, question here is do the previous agreements still hold legal weight.

Don't expect a government that puts priority on maximising timber revenues to challenge the practices of the industry that provides those revenues.

Also,don't expect the professionals who manage our forests to upset the applecart.

The only method available to protect Clayoquot is for activists to keep the spotlight on the area permanently.

And they'll ship it back across the border to us as toilet paper and Hallmark greeting cards with the most heartfelt sentiments for our loved ones, too. Canada's one big kleenex for MacBlo, Weyerhauser and friends

See! Elizabeth May is right. Canadians are stupid.